Johnny Strom said: > > Jesse Keating wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Friday 16 January 2004 08:08, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > >>epoch always wins in a version comparison. Package-4.2 with epoch 14 is > >>considered newer than Package-8.1 with epoch 13. For this reason, I do > >>believe you should set the epoch of the newer distro up by one. Correct > >>me if I'm wrong, but this will ensure that the package gets updated if > >>somebody upgrades from 7.2 to 7.3. Otherwise, since they have the same > >>name, the package wouldn't get upgraded. I don't particularly like > >>epoch, but since it's already in use here, might as well take advantage > >>of it. > > > > > > Ok, some folks have thwacked me upside the head with a big foam clue bat. > > Leave epoch alone. Just bump the build number to indicate a newer > > package. Take the existing largest build number for the package, and bump > > it by one for 7.1, by 2 for 7.2, by 3 for 7.3, etc.. > > > > Does this make sense? > > > Yes it seems fine. I guess it isn't for me. I want to try and clarify. In all cases leave epoch alone. We use the same spec file but the _revisions_ are different. elm: dist|orig|legacy 7.2 elm-2.5.6-1 -> elm-2.5.6.3.legacy 7.3 elm-2.5.6-2 -> elm-2.5.6.3.legacy tcpdump: 7.2 tcpdump-3.6.3-17.7.2.3 -> tcpdump-3.6.3-17.7.2.4.legacy 7.3 tcpdump-3.6.3-17.7.3.3 -> tcpdump-3.6.3-17.7.3.4.legacy 8.0 tcpdump-3.6.3-17.8.0.3 -> tcpdump-3.6.3-17.8.0.4.legacy Is this correct?